Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Understanding the impact of a publication by using bibliometric indices becomes an essential activity not only for universities and research institutes but also for individual academicians. This paper aims to provide a brief review of the current bibliometric tools used by authors and editors and proposes an algorithm to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation.

Methods

We present a narrative review answering at least two related consecutive questions triggered by the topics mentioned above. How prestigious is a journal based on its most recent bibliometrics, so authors may choose it to submit their next manuscript? And, how can they self-evaluate/understand the impact of their whole publishing scientific life?

Results

We presented the main relevant definitions of each bibliometrics and grouped them in those oriented to evaluated journals or individuals. Also, we share with our readers our algorithm to assess journals before manuscript submission.

Conclusions

Since there is a journal performance market and an article performance market, each one with its patterns, an integrative use of these metrics, rather than just the impact factor alone, might represent the fairest and most legitimate approach to assess the influence and importance of an acceptable research issue, and not only a sound journal in their respective disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jones T, Huggett S, Kamalski J (2011) Finding a way through the scientific literature: indexes and measures. World neurosurgery 76(1–2):36–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2011.01.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N (2013) The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol 11(10):e1001675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Weinstein JN (2007) Threats to scientific advancement in clinical practice. Spine 32(11 Suppl):S58–S62. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318053d4fc

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gasparyan AY (2010) Thoughts on impact factors and editing of medical journals. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets 9(1):2–5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Monastersky R (2005) The number that is devouring science. Chron High Educ

  6. de Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149(3683):510–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bergstrom C (2007) Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. Coll Res Libr News 68(5):314–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis PM (2002) Where to spend our e-journal money? In: press oHU (ed) defining a university library's core collection through citation analysis, vol 2. Baltimore, USA, pp 155–166

  9. Garfield E (1996) How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 313(7054):411–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Schoenbach UH, Garfield E (1956) Citation indexes for science. Science 123(3185):61–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Adam D (2002) The counting house. Nature 415(6873):726–729. https://doi.org/10.1038/415726a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parrillo JE (2005) Our journal, critical care medicine, in 2005: high impact factor, rapid manuscript review, growing submissions, and widespread distribution. Crit Care Med 33(5):923–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wikipedia (2011) Impact factor. Wikipedia

  14. Mathur VP, Sharma A (2009) Impact factor and other standardized measures of journal citation: a perspective. Indian J Dent Res 20(1):81–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomson_Reuters (2014) Web of Knowledge. http://wokinfo.com. Accessed Accesed 19 May 2014

  16. Kumar V, Upadhyay S, Medhi B (2009) Impact of the impact factor in biomedical research: its use and misuse. Singap Med J 50(8):752–755

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Horgan A (2002) BMJ's impact factor increases by 24. BMJ 325(7354):8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tobin MJ (2004) Thirty years of impact factor and the journal. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 170(4):351–352. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.2406005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wedzicha JA, Johnston SL, Mitchell DM (2005) Journal impact factors for 2004: another rise for thorax. Thorax 60(9):712. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2005.050922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rizkallah J, Sin DD (2010) Integrative approach to quality assessment of medical journals using impact factor, eigenfactor, and article influence scores. PLoS One 5(4):e10204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomaz PG, Assad RS, Moreira LF (2011) Using the impact factor and H index to assess researchers and publications. Arq Bras Cardiol 96(2):90–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA (2003) Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 91(1):42–46

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bergstrom CT, West JD, Wiseman MA (2008) The Eigenfactor metrics. J Neurosci 28(45):11433–11434. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-08.2008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122(3159):108–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gisbert JP, Panes J (2009) The Hirsch's h-index: a new tool for measuring scientific production. Cirugia espanola 86(4):193–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2009.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Quindos G (2009) Confusing the confused: thoughts on impact factor, h(irsch) index, Q value, and other cofactors that influence the researcher's happiness. Revista iberoamericana de micologia : organo de la Asociacion Espanola de Especialistas en Micologia 26(2):97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1130-1406(09)70018-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kianifar H, Sadeghi R, Zarifmahmoudi L (2014) Comparison between impact factor, eigenfactor metrics, and SCImago journal rank indicator of pediatric neurology journals. Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH 22(2):103–106. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2014.22.103-106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ascaso FJ (2011) Impact factor, eigenfactor and article influence. Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia 86(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2010.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314(7079):498–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Marashi SA (2005) On the identity of "citers": are papers promptly recognized by other investigators? Med Hypotheses 65(4):822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2005.05.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weale AR, Bailey M, Lear PA (2004) The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287(21):2847–2850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Garfield E (2000) Use of journal citation reports and journal performance indicators in measuring short and long term journal impact. Croatian medical journal 41(4):368–374

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Noorden R (2016) Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. Nature 540(7633):325–326. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.21131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Atayero AA, Popoola SI, Egeonu J, Oludayo O (2018) Citation analytics: data exploration and comparative analyses of CiteScores of open access and subscription-based publications indexed in Scopus (2014-2016). Data Brief 19:198–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hans Zijlstra RM (2016) CiteScore: a new metric to help you track journal performance and make decisions. https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/journal-metrics/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal

  37. Hale L (2017) Sleep Health receives its first CiteScore. Sleep Health 3(4):225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2017.06.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sterbenc A, Ostrbenk A (2017) Elsevier's CiteScore index values for Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica: a 2016 update. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat 26(3):53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vanden Eynde JJ (2017) Pharmaceuticals: impact factor or CiteScore. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 10 (3). doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ph10030061

  40. La Torre G, Sciarra I, Chiappetta M, Monteduro A (2017) New bibliometric indicators for the scientific literature: an evolving panorama. Clin Ter 168(2):e65–e71. https://doi.org/10.7417/CT.2017.1985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Avena MJ, Barbosa DA (2017) Bibliometric indicators of the nursing journals according to the index databases. Rev Esc Enferm USP 51:e03262. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1980-220x2017014603262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. González-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-Anegón F (2010) A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4(3):379–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Newman MEJ (2010) Networks: an introduction, 1st. edn. Oxford University Press Inc., New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. SCImago (2007) SJR—SCImago Journal & country rank. http://www.scimagojr.com. Accessed Retrieved 25 Nov 2013

  45. Oosthuizen JC, Fenton JE (2014) Alternatives to the impact factor. Surgeon 12(5):239–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2013.08.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. ELSEVIER (2018) Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP). https://journalinsights.elsevier.com/journals/0969-806X/snip

  47. Kim K, Chung Y (2018) Overview of journal metrics. Sci Educ 5(1):16–20. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Moed HF (2010) Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J Inf Secur 4(3):265–277

    Google Scholar 

  49. Elsevier BV (2013) Source Normalized Impact per Paper. http://www.elsevier.com/editors/journal-metrics#metrics-in-scopus. Accessed 24 Nov 2103

  50. Bergstrom CT, West JD (2008) Assessing citations with the eigenfactor metrics. Neurology 71(23):1850–1851. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000338904.37585.66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. von Bohlen Und Halbach O (2011) How to judge a book by its cover? How useful are bibliometric indices for the evaluation of "scientific quality" or "scientific productivity"? Ann Anat 193(3):191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2011.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Roldan-Valadez E, Rios C (2015) Alternative bibliometrics from impact factor improved the esteem of a journal in a 2-year-ahead annual-citation calculation: multivariate analysis of gastroenterology and hepatology journals. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27(2):115–122. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000000253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Diaz-Ruiz A, Orbe-Arteaga U, Rios C, Roldan-Valadez E (2018) Alternative bibliometrics from the web of knowledge surpasses the impact factor in a 2-year ahead annual citation calculation: linear mixed-design models' analysis of neuroscience journals. Neurol India 66(1):96–104. https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.222880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Roldan-Valadez E, Orbe-Arteaga U, Rios C (2018) Eigenfactor score and alternative bibliometrics surpass the impact factor in a 2-years ahead annual-citation calculation: a linear mixed design model analysis of radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging journals. Radiol Med 123(7):524–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0870-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S (2011) Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 87(1):85–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0306-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ouimet M, Bedard PO, Gelineau F (2011) Are the H-index and some of its alternatives discriminatory of epistemological beliefs and methodological preferences of faculty members? The case of social scientists in Quebec. Scientometrics 88(1):91–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0364-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Purvis A (2006) The H index: playing the numbers game. Trends Ecol Evol 21(8):422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Fernandez-Llimos F (2018) Differences and similarities between journal impact factor and CiteScore. Pharm Pract (Granada) 16(2):1282. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2018.02.1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Agarwal A, Durairajanayagam D, Tatagari S, Esteves SC, Harlev A, Henkel R, Roychoudhury S, Homa S, Puchalt NG, Ramasamy R, Majzoub A, Ly KD, Tvrda E, Assidi M, Kesari K, Sharma R, Banihani S, Ko E, Abu-Elmagd M, Gosalvez J, Bashiri A (2016) Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian journal of andrology 18(2):296–309. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682x.171582

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Cooper ID (2015) Bibliometrics basics. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 103(4):217–218. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.013

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Garcia-Pachon E, Arencibia-Jorge R (2014) A comparison of the impact factor and the SCImago journal rank index in respiratory system journals. Arch bronconeumol 50(7):308–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2013.10.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(46):16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Salgado JF, Paez D (2007) Scientific productivity and Hirsch's h index of Spanish social psychology: convergence between productivity indexes and comparison with other areas. Psicothema 19(2):179–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wikipedia (2011) H-index. Wikipedia

  65. Hirsch JE (2007) Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(49):19193–19198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707962104

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Kulasegarah J, Fenton JE (2010) Comparison of the H index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267(3):455–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-009-1009-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Iglesias JE, Pecharromán C (2007) Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI field. Scientometrics 73(3):303–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Harzing AW (2007) Publish or perish, . Available from:http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm

  69. Egghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69(1):131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Woeginger GJ (2008) An axiomatic analysis of Egghe’s g-index. Journal of Informetrics 2:364–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Serenko A (2010) The development of an AI journal ranking based on the revealed preference approach. Journal of Informetrics 4(4):447–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y (2007) Generalized h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics 72(2):253–280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhang CT (2009) The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One 4(5):e5429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005429

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Dodson MV (2009) Citation analysis: maintenance of h-index and use of e-index. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 387(4):625–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.07.091

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Jin B (2007) The AR-index: complementing the H-index. ISSI Newsletter 3(1):6

    Google Scholar 

  76. Schreiber M (2008) To share the fame in a fair way, HM modifies H for multi-authored manuscripts. New J Phys 10(040201):9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ruiz MA (2014) Goals, globalization and the impact factor of the journal. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter 36(2):93–95. https://doi.org/10.5581/1516-8484.20140019

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Olff M (2014) Are we happy with the impact factor? Eur J Psychotraumatol 5:26084. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.26084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Altmetric (2013) What does altmetric do? http://support.altmetric.com/knowledgebase/articles/83246-altmetric-for-scopus. Accessed 24 Nov 2013

  80. Elsevier BV (2013) Altmetrics. http://www.elsevier.com/editors/journal-metrics#metrics-in-scopus. Accessed 24 Nov 2013

  81. Schmid SL (2017) Five years post-DORA: promoting best practices for research assessment. Mol Biol Cell 28(22):2941–2944. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E17-08-0534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Science_Publishing_Group (2018) Declaration on research assessment. Copyright 2018 Science Publishing Group. https://spg.ltd/?s=DORA

Download references

Acknowledgements

Shirley Yoselin Salazar-Ruiz, M.D., was a research fellow at Directorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, in 2018–2019.

No IRB approval was required for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Directorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, Dr Balmis 148 street, Col. Doctores, Del. Cuauhtemoc, 06726, Mexico City, Mexico

    Ernesto Roldan-Valadez & Shirley Yoselin Salazar-Ruiz

  2. Department of Radiology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Trubetskaya str., 8, b. 2, 119992, Moscow, Russia

    Ernesto Roldan-Valadez

  3. General Directorate of Libraries, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

    Rafael Ibarra-Contreras

  4. Department of Neurochemistry, National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City, Mexico

    Camilo Rios

Authors
  1. Ernesto Roldan-Valadez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shirley Yoselin Salazar-Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafael Ibarra-Contreras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Camilo Rios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernesto Roldan-Valadez.

Ethics declarations

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

For this type of formal study, consent is not required.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S.Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R. et al. Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Ir J Med Sci 188, 939–951 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation